CardiAQ Vs Neovasc Memorandum and Order

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRCT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CARDIAQ VALVE TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEOVASC INC. and NEOVASC TIARA
INC.,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. 14-cv-12405-ADB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

October 31, 2016
BURROUGHS, D.J.
From June 2009 through April 2010, Plaintiff CardiAQ Valve Technologies, Inc.
(CardiAQ) hired Defendant Neovasc Inc. (Neovasc) to help construct prototypes of
CardiAQs transcatheter mitral valve implant (TMVI) device. CardiAQ alleges that Neovasc
breached the parties non-disclosure agreement (NDA) and misappropriated CardiAQs trade
secrets by using CardiAQs confidential information to develop its own competing TMVI
device. On May 19, 2016, following a two-week trial, a jury found for CardiAQ as to some,
though not all, of its claims. The jury returned a verdict finding that Neovasc: (1) breached the
NDA; (2) breached the duty of honest performance in the NDA; and (3) misappropriated three of
CardiAQs six claimed trade secrets. [ECF No. 483]. The jury awarded CardiAQ $70,000,000 in
damages for Neovascs theft of trade secrets, with no additional damages for the contract
breaches.
The Court has already resolved several post-trial motions. On May 27, 2016, the Court
granted Neovascs motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to CardiAQs Chapter
93A claim, finding that Neovascs alleged wrongful acts had not occurred primarily and
substantially within the commonwealth of Massachusetts, as is required under the statute. Mass.
Gen. L. Ch. 93A, 11. [ECF No. 495]. On July 28, 2016, the Court denied both parties renewed
motions for judgment as a matter of law with respect to CardiAQs duty of honest performance
claims, declining to overturn the jurys finding that Neovasc had breached the duty of honest
performance with regard to the NDA, but not with the parties purchase orders. [ECF No. 529].
On August 15, 2016, the Court held oral argument on the remaining post-trial motions:
CardiAQs motions for enhanced damages and injunctive relief [ECF Nos. 513, 516] as well as
Neovascs motions for a new trial on damages and trade secrets 4-6 [ECF Nos. 511, 520]. The
Court also heard argument on CardiAQs inventorship claim, which was left for the Court rather
than the jury to decide.
Finally, on October 19, 2016, in anticipation of an appeal, Neovasc filed motions and a
supporting memorandum [ECF Nos. 571-574] seeking the Pro Hac Vice admission of three
additional attorneys. CardiAQ opposed the motions on October 24, 2016 [ECF No. 578].
This Order resolves all of the outstanding motions, as well as CardiAQs inventorship
claim. For the reasons stated herein: (1) CardiAQs motion for enhanced damages [ECF No. 513]
is GRANTED IN PART; (2) CardiAQs motion for injunctive relief [ECF No. 516] is
GRANTED IN PART; (3) Neovascs motion for a new trial on damages [ECF No. 522] is
DENIED; (4) Neovascs motion for a new trial on trade secrets 4-6 [ECF No. 521] is DENIED;
(5); Dr. Quadri and Mr. Ratz are to be added as co-inventors of U.S. Patent No. 8,579,964; and
(6) Neovascs motions for the Pro Hac Vice admission of new attorneys [ECF Nos. 571-573] are
DENIED as MOOT.
I.
Background
a. Procedural Background
In its original complaint, filed on June 6, 2014 [ECF No. 1], as well as its amended
complaint, filed on January 15, 2015 [ECF No. 64], CardiAQ brought the following seven claims
against Neovasc: (1) correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. 256; (2) breach of the NDA;
(3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the NDA and purchase
orders; 1 (4) fraud; (5) misappropriation of trade secrets under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93 42, 42A
and the common law; (6) violation of Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A 11; and (7) injunctive relief.
In April 2016, the Court granted Neovascs motion for summary judgment as to the fraud
count, finding that Neovasc did not have an affirmative duty to disclose its competitive activities
to CardiAQ, and therefore did not commit fraud by failing to disclose such activity once it began.
[ECF No. 417]. The Court, however, denied Neovascs motion for summary judgment as to the
inventorship and Chapter 93A counts. Id.
The next month, this action proceeded to trial. Over the course of the two-week trial, the
two founders of CardiAQBrent Ratz and Dr. Arshad Quadritestified, as did Rob Michiels,
the former CEO of CardiAQ; Randy Lane, Vice President of Research and Development at
Neovasc; and Alexei Marko, CEO of Neovasc. The jury also heard the deposition of testimony
of several fact witnesses that were not present at trial, including: Colin Nyuli, an intellectual
property manager and former project engineer at Neovasc; Krista Neale, the manager of new
Because both the NDA and the parties purchase orders are governed by Canadian law, at trial,
CardiAQs claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Massachusetts
law were advanced under the analogous duty of honest performance under Canadian law.
3
technology development and former project engineer at Neovasc; Kathleen Hung, a project
manager at Neovasc; Dr. Michael Mack, a former member of CardiAQs scientific advisory
board; and Glen Rabito, a senior manager of research and development at Edwards Lifesciences
and a former engineering manager and research and development project leader at CardiAQ.
In addition, three experts testified for CardiAQ. Dr. Joseph Bavaria, Vice Chairman of
the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery at the University of Pennsylvania and Director of the
Transcatheter Valve Program at the University of Pennsylvania, testified as to the anatomy of the
heart and specifically, the mitral valve. Dr. Rick Hillstead, a Fellow on the Council of Clinical
Cardiology within the American Heart Association, testified generally about the development of
medical devices and the customs and practices of vendors, suppliers, and development houses in
the medical device field. Finally, Michael J. Wagner, the managing director at Litinomics, Inc., a
financial and economic consulting firm, testified as to damages, opining that the reasonable
royalty Neovasc owed to CardiAQ was $90 million, based on a hypothetical negotiation taking
place in 2010. Three experts also testified for Neovasc. Steven Little, a cardiologist at Houston
Methodist Hospital and the medical director of its valve clinic, testified regarding cardiac
imaging and the anatomy of the mitral valve, as well as the interaction of CardiAQs and
Neovascs respective devices within the native mitral valve anatomy. Karl R. Leinsing, a
mechanical engineer who develops medical devices, testified regarding CardiAQs trade secret
claims and Neovascs Tiara development. Lastly, Carla Mulhern, managing principal in the
Washington D.C. office of Analysis Group, testified as to damages, and opined that correcting
for various errors in Mr. Wagners analysis, the appropriate royalty figure was no more than $2
million.
The jury returned a split verdict. [ECF No. 483]. The verdict form contained eight
questions. The first four concerned CardiAQs breach of contract claims. The jury was asked to
determine whether CardiAQ had proven, by a preponderance of the evidence that Neovasc had:
(1) breached the NDA; (2) breached the duty of honest performance in the NDA; and (3)
breached the duty of honest performance in the purchase orders. If the jury answered yes to any
of these three questions, they were instructed to then determine the amount of money CardiAQ
should receive for Neovascs breach(es). The jury answered yes to the first two questions, but no
to the third: Neovasc had breached the NDA as well as the duty of honest performance in the
NDA, but not the purchase orders. As to the fourth question, the jury found that CardiAQ should
not receive any money for Neovascs breaches.
Next, the jury was asked to determine if Neovasc had misappropriated CardiAQs trade
secrets. At trial, CardiAQ maintained that Neovasc had misappropriated six of its trade secrets,
and the verdict form asked the jury to make a separate finding as to each one. The six alleged
trade secrets were originally identified by CardiAQ during discovery, and were described in trial
exhibit 1157. The alleged trade secrets were:
1. CardiAQs Rev. C Prototype Design [Tr. Ex. 1157 at 1-5];
2. CardiAQs Rev. D Prototype Design [Tr. Ex. 1157 at 5-10];
3. CardiAQs Rev. E Prototype Design [Tr. Ex. 1157 at 10-14];
4. A transcatheter replacement mitral valve prosthesis design that includes an
expandable metal frame for supporting a tricuspid, one-way valve, the
expandable metal frame sized for placement in a human native mitral valve
space, where the prosthesis is configured for mitral valve implantation
without relying exclusively on radial force but rather by engaging the native
mitral valve annulus on the atrial side of the native mitral valve and by
anchoring the prosthesis on the ventricular side of the native mitral valve
annulus [Tr. Ex. 1157 at 14-17];
5. The CardiAQ Mandrel [Tr. Ex. 1157 at 18]; and
6. CardiAQs Transcatheter Mitral Valve Implantation Development History

[Tr. Ex. 1157 at 18].
The jury found that that Neovasc had misappropriated trade secrets 4-6, but not trade secrets 1-3,
and that CardiAQ should receive $70 million as damages for Neovascs misappropriation.
The jury was also asked to make factual determinations with respect to the two counts
inventorship and Chapter 93Areserved for the Court. The jury found that CardiAQ had proven
(1) by a preponderance of the evidence that Neovasc engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or
practices; and (2) by clear and convincing evidence that the two founders of CardiAQ
contributed to the conception of Neovascs U.S. Patent No. 8,579,964 (the 964 Patent).
b. Factual Background
Below is a summary of facts adduced at trial that are relevant to the outstanding issues in
this case:
Neovasc and CardiAQs business relationship began on June 4, 2009, after Brian
McPherson, the Vice President of Operations and President of the Surgical Products division at
Neovasc, sent an unsolicited email to CardiAQ co-founder Brent Ratz advertising Neovascs
products and services. [Tr. Day 3, 183:7-20; Tr. Ex. 349]. The email stated that Neovasc was the
only supplier of custom pericardial tissue actively supporting companies developing minimally
invasive heart valves, and that he was confident CardiAQ could benefit from Neovascs
services. [Tr. Ex. 349] Mr. McPherson attached a 15-page presentation to the email, describing
Neovascs services. Id. at 3-17.
Mr. Ratz responded that same day to indicate his interest in learning more about Neovasc.
[ECF No. 304-7 at 32]. Before speaking with Mr. McPherson about a potential business
relationship, Mr. Ratz suggested that the parties execute a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Id. Mr.
Ratz emailed Mr. McPherson CardiAQs standard agreement, and Mr. McPherson responded
that he would rather use Neovascs. Id. On June 4, 2009, the parties executed Neovascs NonDisclosure Agreement (the NDA), agreeing that the recipient of Confidential Information
could not use or disclose such information for any purpose other than evaluating the proposed
business relationship. [Tr. Ex. 371].2 The parties agreed that the recipient of Confidential
Information could not directly or indirectly, disclose any Confidential Information to any third
party or use the Confidential Information for its own benefit or for the benefit of any third
party. Id. The NDA had a five-year term, and was governed by the laws of the Province of
British Columbia. Id. The NDA was executed via email and signed by Mr. Ratz and Neovasc
CEO Alexei Marko. [Tr. Day 3, 188:1-14; Tr. Ex. 371].
At the time Mr. McPherson reached out to CardiAQ, CardiAQ was a start-up developing
a TMVI devicea prosthetic heart valve delivered through a catheter to replace a
malfunctioning native mitral valve. Mitral regurgitation, one of the most common forms of heart
disease, can be treated by replacing the mitral valve, but, currently, the only way to replace the
mitral valve is through open heart surgery. By June 2009, CardiAQ, had developed a prototype
of its TMVI device, intended to replace the mitral valve through a catheter procedure, rather than
open heart surgery.
Confidential Information is defined in the NDA as any oral or written information received
from the Discloser which is not generally known to the public . . . Confidential Information
includes, by way of example and not limitation, information of a technical nature such as trade
secrets; manufacturing processes or devices; current products or products under development;
research subjects; methods and results; matters of a business nature such as information about
cost, margins, pricing policies, markets, sales, suppliers and customers; product, marketing or
strategic plans; financial information; personnel records and other information of a similar
nature. [ECF No. 64, Ex. B].
7
CardiAQs device consists of three elements: the frame, the delivery catheter, and the
tissue valve. [Tr. Day 3, 15:20-23]. Between June 2009 and April 2010, Neovasc worked with
CardiAQ to manufacture the tissue valve element. [Tr. Day 3, 16:1-3]. During this time,
CardiAQ and Neovasc entered into several purchase orders (the Purchase Orders), in which
they agreed to the work Neovasc would perform. [See e.g., ECF No. 64, Ex. D]. CardiAQ would
send metal frames to Neovascs Vancouver facility [Tr. Day 4, 36:15-37:2; Tr. Ex. 1205], and
Neovasc would attach tissue to the frame and assemble the final TMVI prototype. [Tr. Day 3,
24:23-25:2; Tr. Day 3, 35:1-2; Tr. Day 4, 26:1-3]. CardiAQ used the prototypes assembled by
Neovasc for several animal studies. [Tr. Day 3, 25:3-9; Tr. Day 4, 48:10-12].
Over the course of the 10-month relationship, Mr. Ratz regularly exchanged emails and
phone calls with Neovasc employees. Through these emails and phone calls, Neovasc
employees, including engineer Randy Lane, learned about the specifications, ongoing animal
testing, and development history of CardiAQs TMVI device. [See e.g., Exs. 1171; 1179; 1193;
1197; 1214]. During this time, CardiAQ sent frames of its Rev. C, D, and E prototypes to
Neovasc, which then attached the tissue valve element. [Tr. Day 3, 209:24-211:24; Tr. Day 4,
27:10-25; Tr. Day 4, 36:15-37:25].
On October 20, 2009, in the middle of CardiAQ and Neovascs business relationship, Mr.
Lane drew the first sketch of what would become Neovascs own TMVI device, now known as
the Tiara. [Tr. Day 8, 99:10-12; Day 9, 67:9-17; Tr. Ex. 1121]. After sketching the concept in
his lab notebook, Mr. Lane told Neovascs CEO Alexi Marko about the idea [Tr. Day 8,100:1121], and Mr. Marko instructed Mr. Lane to proceed with an in-house mitral valve program,
which he did. [Tr. Ex. 343; Tr. Day 8, 122:9-123:11]. Mr. Marko advised Mr. Lane not to tell
CardiAQ about Neovascs internal project, explaining in an October 21, 2009 email that, when
appropriate we may need to disclose to [CardiAQ] that we are working on something, but lets
cross that bridge when we come to it. [Tr. Ex. 343].
Neovasc and CardiAQs business relationship ended in April 2010, after CardiAQ leased
its own manufacturing facility in California and no longer needed Neovascs services. [Tr. Day
4, 46:9-16; Tr. Day 7, 119:14-25; Tr. Day 9, 107:19-22]. Until Neovascs relationship with
CardiAQ ended in April 2010, Mr. Lane worked on both Neovascs internal TMVI project and
CardiAQs valve assembly. [Tr. Day 9, 113:10-19]. Mr. Lane used the same lab notebook to
document his development of Neovascs valve and his assembly of CardiAQs valve, at times
including notes on adjacent pages. [Tr. Ex. 1121]. Neovasc did not restrict any of its engineers
from working on both the Tiara project and the CardiAQ project, and several did. [Tr. Day 9,
113:14- 24].
In December 2009, Neovasc began to prepare its first patent application relating to the
Tiara design. [Tr. Day 9, 107:23-108:5]. Neovasc filed the application on May 5, 2010 [Tr. Day
9, 107:23-25], naming Mr. Lane as the sole inventor. [Tr. Ex. 2756]. The U.S. Patent Office
issued the 964 Patent on November 12, 2013, naming Mr. Lane and Colin Nyuli, a Neovasc
employee who joined Neovasc in September 2010, as joint inventors. [Tr. Ex. 115]. The 964
Patent is a method patent for a transcatheter mitral valve prosthesis. Id.
Neovasc formally announced its internal TMVI project in a June 20, 2011 press release.
[Tr. Ex. 347; Tr. Day 9, 206:11-17]. Since then, Neovascs device has been implanted in over
100 animals. [Tr. Ex. 2533 at 57]. On February 3, 2014, Neovasc announced the first in-human
implantation of its device by physicians at St. Pauls Hospital in Vancouver. [Tr. Ex. 2315]
Neovasc never told CardiAQ about its internal TMVI program. [Tr. Day 4, 51:14-18; Tr.
Day 9, 112:23-113:1]. Mr. Ratz and Dr. Quadri first learned of Neovascs development of a
TMVI device in December 2011, after Neovascs patent application became public. [Tr. Day 3,
68:2-23; Day 4, 51:19-25]. Soon thereafter, in February 2012, counsel for CardiAQ contacted
Mr. Marko to express concern that Neovasc may have incorporated CardiAQs confidential
information into its Tiara device, in violation of the NDA. [Tr. Ex. 1389]. In June 2014, after
counsel for the parties exchanged multiple letters [see, e.g., Tr. Exs. 188, 1272, 2482], CardiAQ
filed the instant action. Neither CardiAQs nor Neovascs TMVI devices have received
regulatory approval, and both are currently in the clinical trial process.
II.
CardiAQs Motions
CardiAQs two pending motions request enhanced damages [ECF No. 513] and
injunctive relief [ECF No. 516] in addition to the $70 million already awarded by the jury. The
motion for enhanced damages asks the Court to double the jurys $70 million damages award.
The motion for injunctive relief requests that the Court order Neovasc to: (1) destroy all
information that CardiAQ sent to Neovasc between June 2009 and April 2010; (2) return to
CardiAQ any CardiAQ prototypes, or portions thereof, that CardiAQ provided to Neovasc and
that Neovasc still has in its possession, custody, or control; (3) without the written consent of
CardiAQ, not prosecute claims covering subject matter that is either described in CardiAQs
Trade Secret Number 4, or described in claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,579,964, for which the Court
determines Dr. Quadri and Mr. Ratz significantly contributed; and (4) with certain limitations,
suspend all of its TMVI programs, including, but not limited to, its Tiara program, for eighteen
months.
Following oral argument, CardiAQ submitted a supplemental memorandum regarding
both motions [ECF No. 562], in which it suggested that the Court issue an injunction with
contingencies, for example, that the injunction be contingent on whether or not Neovasc satisfies
10
the $70 million verdict and further argued that the Court should enhance damages by at least
33%, or $23.3 million. Neovasc responded to the supplemental memorandum on September 8,
2016. [ECF No. 567].
a. Motion for Enhanced Damages
CardiAQs request for enhanced damages arises under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93, 42, which
states that:
Whoever embezzles, steals or unlawfully takes, carries away, conceals, or
copies, or by fraud or by deception obtains, from any person or corporation,
with intent to convert to his own use, any trade secret, regardless of value,
shall be liable in tort to such person or corporation for all damages resulting
therefrom. Whether or not the case is tried by a jury, the court, in its
discretion, may increase the damages up to double the amount found. The
term trade secret as used in this section shall have the same meaning as
is set forth in section thirty of chapter two hundred and sixty-six.
Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93, 42 (emphasis added). This provision, which gives the Court discretion to
double the jurys damages award in a trade secret case, has been applied sparingly in both state
and federal court. In Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 825 F. Supp. 340, 343 (D.
Mass. 1993), the court added $9,000,000 to the jurys $27,417,000 award after finding that
defendant s misappropriation of trade secrets had been willful. In USM Corp. v. Marson
Fastener Corp., 467 N.E.2d 1271, 127677 (Mass. 1984), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court (SJC) held that enhanced damages were inappropriate, where the jury had awarded
damages based on defendants profit (i.e. unjust enrichment) rather than plaintiffs lost profit.
The SJC found that [t]he reference to damages resulting from a defendants tortious act
concerns the trade secret holders loss of profit, and not, as here, a defendants profit at a
plaintiffs expense. Id. at 1285.
Neovasc argues that enhanced damages are precluded by the SJCs decision in USM
Corp. Absent damages for lost profits, according to Neovasc, [CardiAQ] has no basis to seek
11
a new, novel construction of Ch. 93 42 inconsistent with the holding in USM. [ECF No. 534
at 4]. CardiAQ counters that USM is inapposite, since it did not involve an award for reasonable
royalties. The USM holding, according to CardiAQ, should be limited to cases in which the
jurys award disgorged the defendants profits, which was not the case here, where neither party
has made any profit from their still-unapproved TMVI devices. [ECF No. 546 at 5-8].
The Court agrees with CardiAQ that the SJCs decision in USM is distinguishable and
does not preclude enhanced damages in this case. USM held that enhanced damages are not
available under Ch. 93 42 where the damages awarded by the jury constitute a defendants
profit at a plaintiffs expense. USM, 467 N.E.2d at 1285. The SJC concluded that a defendants
ill-gotten gains cannot be enhanced under the statute, since they are technically not damages
resulting from the misappropriation. Id. USM does not apply to this case, where neither party
has made any profit from their still unapproved TMVI devices, and the plaintiff pursued a
reasonable royalty theory of damages. The reasonable royalty is the amount the parties would
have hypothetically agreed on to grant the defendant the right to use plaintiffs trade secrets.
The [reasonable royalty] determination remains one of damages to the injured party. Fromson
v. Western Litho Plate and Supply Co., 853 F.2d 1568, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (emphasis
omitted), overruled on other grounds by Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v.
Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d
1098, 110910 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (The objective of the reasonable royalty calculation is to
determine the amount necessary to adequately compensate for an infringement.). This is distinct
from the award in USM, which disgorged defendants ill-gotten gains, and more analogous to
lost profits, which USM said can be enhanced under the statute.
12
Further, Neovascs misappropriation was willful, such that some amount of enhanced
damages is appropriate. See Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 825 F. Supp. 340,
343 (D. Mass. 1993) (enhancing damages by 33% after finding that defendants misappropriation
of trade secrets had been willful). The same Neovasc employeeRandy Lanewas both the
primary developer of Neovascs Tiara device and the primary point of contact for CardiAQ.
Neovasc took no steps to limit Lane, or any other employee, from working on both projects,
despite the obvious conflict and potential for misuse.
Enhanced damages are particularly appropriate here, where the jury awarded reasonable
royalty damages. It is unlikely that in 2009 or 2010, CardiAQ would have actually licensed its
trade secrets to Neovasc, had Neovasc asked. The reasonable royalty, therefore, is based on a
legal fiction and does not fully compensate CardiAQ. Because of Neovascs misappropriation,
which now cannot be undone, CardiAQ was compelled to license its technology to Neovasc, at
the rate determined by the jury.
The Court therefore enhances damages by 30%, and Neovasc is ordered to pay $21
million in addition to the $70 million awarded by the jury.
b. Injunctive Relief
The permanent injunction requested by CardiAQ has four components, but the parties
arguments have largely focused on the single most punitive aspect of the proposed injunction
that with certain limitations, Neovasc be ordered to suspend all of its TMVI programs, including,
but not limited to, its Tiara program, for eighteen months. CardiAQ contends that without an
injunction to reverse the unfair head start that Neovasc obtained by its breach and
misappropriation, CardiAQ will continue to be irreparably harmed [ECF No. 527 at 11] and that
Neovasc will unfairly retain the competitive advantage it obtained by breaching the NDA and
13
misappropriating its trade secrets. Neovasc responds that the proposed injunction duplicates the
money remedy sought and obtained by CardiAQ, that there is no basis for CardiAQs 18-month
head start argument, and that both the balance of hardships and public interest disfavor the
injunction. [ECF No. 537-1]. In a supplemental memorandum filed after oral argument, CardiAQ
added that an injunction is necessary and not duplicative, because there is a chance Neovasc will
not be able to pay the $70 million previously awarded by the jury. [ECF No. 562].
Based on well-established principles of equity, to obtain a permanent injunction, [a]
plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies
available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3)
that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity
is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). The purpose of an injunction in
a trade secret case is to protect the secrecy of the misappropriated information, eliminate the
unfair advantage obtained by the wrongdoer and reinforce the public policy of commercial
morality. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sung, 843 F. Supp. 776, 778 (D. Mass. 1994). [B]ecause of the
public interest in promoting competition, punitive injunctions are ordinarily inappropriate in
trade secret actions. Atl. Research Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Troy, No. CIV.A.07-11576-PBS, 2010
WL 1904849, at *89 (D. Mass. May 11, 2010) (quoting Jillians Billiard Club of Am., Inc. v.
Beloff Billiards, Inc., 619 N.E.2d 635, 638 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993)); see also Specialized Tech.
Res., Inc. v. JPS Elastomerics Corp., No. HSCV200700200, 2011 WL 1366584, at *16 (Mass.
Super. Feb. 10, 2011), affd, 957 N.E.2d 1116 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011) ([I]njunctions granted to
prevent trade secret violations are not punitive and only rarely are truly permanent, as they must
14
be reasonable as to time and scope; what is reasonable depends on the facts of each particular
case.).
Having considered the four-factor test for a permanent injunction, the Court will not
suspend Neovascs TMVI program for any amount of time. The $70 million already awarded by
the jury, together with the enhanced damages granted in this Order, adequately compensate
CardiAQ for its injury. The proposed 18-month suspension would be duplicative of the monetary
relief, and is not warranted given the uncertainty in the TMVI market, the impact the injunction
would have on Neovasc, and the publics interest in having access to a potentially life-saving
technology.
The first two factors of the injunction analysis ask whether the plaintiff has suffered
irreparable injury from the defendants actions and next, whether remedies available at law, such
as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for the injury. The first two of the four
factors are satisfied on a showing of substantial injury that is not accurately measurable or
adequately compensable by money damages. CoxCom, Inc. v. Chaffee, 536 F.3d 101, 112 (1st
Cir. 2008) (quoting Ross-Simons of Warwick, Inc. v. Baccarat, Inc., 217 F.3d 8, 13 (1st Cir.
2000)).
As noted earlier, CardiAQ pursued a reasonable royalty theory of damages. At trial, its
expert testified that Neovasc would have agreed to pay CardiAQ $90 million following a
hypothetical negotiation between CardiAQ and Neovasc in 2010. The jury accepted some of this
testimony by awarding CardiAQ $70 million.
The reasonable royalty remedy is imperfect and necessarily inexact. See Bowling v.
Hasbro, Inc., 582 F. Supp. 2d 192, 20405 (D.R.I. 2008) (noting the element of approximation
and uncertainty inherent in the reasonable royalty rubric). It assumes a fictionthat both parties
15
would have been willing to negotiate and agree to a royaltyin order to fashion a viable remedy
in a case like this, where there are no other quantifiable damages.
In other cases, plaintiffs have sought a reasonable royalty for defendants past use of
trade secrets, and then a permanent injunction to prevent any future use. See, e.g., Language Line
Servs., Inc. v. Language Servs. Associates, Inc., 944 F. Supp. 2d 775, 783 (N.D. Cal. 2013)
(Language Line clarifies in its response that it seeks a reasonable royalty for past use of trade
secrets . . . and a permanent injunction to prevent future misappropriation . . . .); RKI, Inc. v.
Grimes, 200 F. Supp. 2d 916, 926 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (These cases are distinguishable from the
case at hand because this Court did not award any damages for future use of the misappropriated
information, but rather only awarded damages for the use and disclosure of RollKrafts trade
secrets for the period before the injunction issued.); cf. Bianco v. Globus Med., Inc., 53 F.
Supp. 3d 929, 932, 93839 (E.D. Tex. 2014) (In patent cases in which a permanent injunction is
sought, the Federal Circuit has held that a district court may impose a reasonable royalty on the
defendant for future use of the patented invention in lieu of an injunction.). Here, however, the
$90 million reasonable royalty requested by CardiAQ did not distinguish between past and future
use of its trade secrets. The $90 million figure approximated the amount Neovasc would have
been willing to pay to use CardiAQs trade secrets indefinitely. This future-facing royalty
overlaps with the injunction CardiAQ now seeks. The reasonable royalty is the amount Neovasc
must pay for the right to use CardiAQs trade secrets, but the injunction would prevent Neovasc
from using CardiAQs trade secrets at all.
Further, to arrive at the $90 million figure, Mr. Wagner made several assumptions,
including that, by misappropriating CardiAQs trade secrets and confidential information,
Neovasc obtained an 18 month head start on its TMVI projectmeaning that but for its
16
misappropriation, Neovasc would have been 18 months behind on the development of its TMVI
device. He assumed that Neovasc could have come up with an equivalent product to CardiAQs
device, but it would have taken 18 months longer to do so without using the alleged CardiAQ
trade secrets. [Tr. Day 8 at 50:15-21]. His reasonable royalty thus placed a value on this 18month head start. The requested injunction is premised on the same 18-month head start, and is
therefore duplicative of the monetary relief already awarded. By now asking for Neovascs
project to be suspended for 18 months, CardiAQ is trying to have it both waysit has already
received damages that approximate the value of the 18-month head start to Neovasc, and now it
seeks an injunction that would eliminate the 18-month head start.
The third and fourth factors of the injunction analysis, the balance of the hardships and
the public interest, each weigh against the injunction. First, the balance of the hardships disfavors
granting the injunction. CardiAQ complains that if Neovasc is not enjoined, CardiAQ will have
to compete with Neovasc for hospitals at which to perform studies, and for the attention of
prominent surgeons known as Key Opinion Leaders. [ECF No. 517 15-36]. The parties
dispute whether this is true. Regardless, this potential hardship is far less severe than that
Neovasc would face if the injunction were granted. The Court credits the testimony of Neovascs
CEO that dozens of Neovasc employees would be laid off as a result of the injunction, given that
more than half of Neovascs workforce is dedicated to the Tiara program. [ECF No. 538-13
3132]. Moreover, because of Neovascs small size and how central the Tiara is to its business,
Neovasc might not remain as a going concern following the 18-month suspension. Id. 32.
The public would also be disserved by the injunction. As evidenced at trial, Neovasc and
CardiAQs prototypes now differ in several respects and it is unknown which one will be most
effective at treating malfunctioning mitral valves. No TMVI device has received regulatory
17
approval, and it is impossible to know which device(s) will or will not be approved. By imposing
the 18-month injunction, the Court could potentially delay the progress of the one TMVI device
that works, and thereby keep a lifesaving device off the market for an additional year-and-a-half.
While there is a countervailing interest in protecting trade secrets and disincentivizing trade
secret misappropriation, that interest is largely addressed by the damages Neovasc must pay, and
is outweighed by the publics interest in getting the most effective TMVI device to the market as
fast as possible.
An injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a
matter of course. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 16566 (2010). An
injunction should not be granted where a less drastic remedy will suffice. Id. For the reasons
explained above, the Court will not impose the 18-month injunction. The monetary relief already
awarded by the jury, together with the enhanced damages ordered by the Court, largely
compensate CardiAQ for its loss, and both the public interest and balance of the hardships
disfavor the injunction.
In addition to the 18-month suspension, CardiAQs motion for injunctive relief also
requests that the Court order the following:
1. That within seven days, Neovasc destroy all information that CardiAQ sent
to Neovasc between June 2009 and April 2010, including emails and
attachments thereto, CAD files, engineering drawings, animal test results,
design history information, as well as any work product that Neovasc
generated that incorporates information contained in the foregoing,
including the contents of any physical or electronic file that Neovasc may
keep regarding CardiAQ, including the electronic CardiAQ folder
referenced during trial.
2. That within seven days, Neovasc return to CardiAQ any CardiAQ
prototypes, or portions thereof, that CardiAQ provided to Neovasc and that
Neovasc still has in its possession, custody, or control, including but not
limited to prototypes fabricated by Neovasc to test any CardiAQ prototype
design.
18
3. That without the written consent of CardiAQ, Neovasc shall not in any
patent application relating to U.S. Patent No. 8,579,964, prosecute claims
covering subject matter that is either described in CardiAQs Trade Secret
Number 4, or described in claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,579,964 for which
the Court determines Dr. Quadri and Mr. Ratz significantly contributed.
[ECF No. 516 1-4].
The Court hereby approves the first two requests for relief. Neovasc is ordered to destroy
all information that CardiAQ sent to Neovasc between June 2009 and April 2010 and to return to
CardiAQ any CardiAQ prototypes, or portions thereof, that CardiAQ provided to Neovasc and
that Neovasc still has in its possession, custody, or control, including but not limited to
prototypes fabricated by Neovasc to test any CardiAQ prototype designs. Neovasc has no valid
reason to keep this information. To the extent the information is public, which would allow
Neovasc to use it even under the NDA, Neovasc can use public sources to obtain the
information. Neither the public nor CardiAQ has an interest in Neovasc retaining CardiAQs
information and prototypes. Regardless of the fact, as Neovasc argues, that the NDA has expired,
Neovasc does not have a right to retain CardiAQs confidential information and the injunction is
necessary to protect the secrecy of misappropriated information, to eliminate the unfair
advantage obtained by the wrongdoer, and to reinforce the public policy of commercial
morality. Specialized Tech. Res., Inc. v. JPS Elastomerics Corp., No. HSCV200700200, 2011
WL 1366584, at *16 (Mass. Super. Feb. 10, 2011), affd, 957 N.E.2d 1116 (Mass. App. Ct.
2011).
The Court will not order the third request for relief. As explained further below, see supra
section IV.c., Mr. Ratz and Dr. Quadri should have been named as co-inventors on the 964
Patentin collaboration with Mr. Lane, they made a significant contribution to the conception of
the invention. The Court, however, cannot broadly extend this ruling to any claims covering
19
subject matter that is either described in CardiAQs Trade Secret Number 4 (Tr. Ex. 1157), or
described in claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,579,964. [ECF No. 516 4]. No patent other than the
964 Patent was ever at issue in this case, and CardiAQ cites no authority for the proposition that
the Court can interfere with Neovascs prosecution of pending and/or hypothetical patent
applications.
That being said, just because this matter has been resolved, and judgment will soon be
entered against Neovasc, Neovasc does not have free rein to claim CardiAQs trade secrets and
inventive concepts as its own. Any future TMVI patents that are issued to Neovasc will be
subject to scrutiny under 35 U.S.C. 256consistent with the Courts ruling on the 964 Patent,
Mr. Ratz and Dr. Quadri should not be excluded from any patents that they contributed to.
III.
Neovascs Pending Motions

In its two pending motions, Neovasc requests a new trial on damages [ECF No. 522] and
a new trial on CardiAQs trade secret claims 4, 5, and 6. [ECF No. 521]. Neovasc claims that
once the jury determined that Neovasc misappropriated some, but not all, of CardiAQs trade
secrets, Mr. Wagners expert testimony regarding the reasonable royalty became useless and the
jury had no basis for determining damages. In addition, Neovasc argues that the jurys finding of
misappropriation with respect to trade secret claims 4, 5, and 6 is unsupported by the evidence
and contrary to governing law.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, following a jury trial, a court may grant a motion for a new trial
for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal
court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A). The trial court may order a new trial if the verdict is against
the clear weight of the evidence, is based upon evidence that is false, or resulted from some trial
error and amounts to a clear miscarriage of justice. Payton v. Abbott Labs, 780 F.2d 147, 152
20
(1st Cir. 1985). [A] district court wields broad legal authority when considering a motion for a
new trial, but it cannot displace a jurys verdict merely because [it] disagrees with it or because
a contrary verdict may have been equally . . . supportable. Jennings v. Jones, 587 F.3d 430, 436
(1st Cir. 2009) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Absent an error of law, a judge should
only set aside a jury verdict if it is quite clear that the jury has reached a seriously erroneous
result. Milone v. Moceri Family, Inc., 847 F.2d 35, 3738 (1st Cir. 1988) (quotations omitted).
In reviewing an award of damages, the district court is obliged to review the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prevailing party and to grant remittitur or a new trial on damages
only when the award exceeds any rational appraisal or estimate of the damages that could be
based upon the evidence before it. Wortley v. Camplin, 333 F.3d 284, 297 (1st Cir. 2003)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301,
1310 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (A jurys decision with respect to an award of damages must be upheld
unless the amount is grossly excessive or monstrous, clearly not supported by the evidence, or
based only on speculation or guesswork.) (internal quotation marks omitted)). [T]he jury is
free to select the highest figures for which there is adequate evidentiary support, as long as the
figure remains in the universe of acceptable awards. Am. Steel Erectors v. Local Union No. 7,
Intl Assn of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers, 815 F.3d 43, 58 (1st
Cir. 2016) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
a. Motion for a New Trial on Damages
Most of the arguments raised by Neovasc in its motion for a new trial on damages were
previously rejected, when the Court denied Neovascs motion to exclude Mr. Wagners
testimony. [ECF No. 418]. In a motion in limine filed on the eve of trial, Neovasc argued that
Mr. Wagners testimony on a reasonable royalty should be excluded because he: (1) had no basis
21
to assume that the information CardiAQ shared with Neovasc gave Neovasc an 18-month head
start in the development of its Tiara device; (2) inappropriately incorporated financial
information that arose after the date of the hypothetical negotiation; and (3) improperly relied on
Neovascs sales of securities to calculate a baseline royalty. [ECF Nos. 344, 346]. The Court
rejected each of these arguments. First, the 18-month head start assumption, which was only one
piece of Mr. Wagners larger reasonable royalty analysis, did not warrant excluding Mr.
Wagners testimony, given that there was some evidence in the record to support the 18-month
head start assumption, and that CardiAQ intended to present evidence at trial, through fact
witnesses, to establish the facts assumed by Mr. Wagner. [ECF No. 418 at 6-7]. Second, though
Mr. Wagners Georgia-Pacific analysis included ex-post evidence, such as the value of the Tiara
in 2015, he correctly calculated a reasonable royalty using a hypothetical negotiation date of
March 2010, the date on which CardiAQ and Neovasc cut ties. Id. at 7-8. Accordingly, while
Neovasc could challenge Mr. Wagners use of 2015 data, it did not render his testimony
inadmissible. Lastly, Mr. Wagner properly factored the proceeds from a Neovasc securities sale
into his damages calculation since, unlike in the cases cited by Neovasc, he apportioned the
value of the securities sale between CardiAQs and Neovascs contributions. Id. at 8-9. The
Court concluded that Neovasc could challenge these three aspects of Mr. Wagners opinion at
trial, but that none warranted excluding his testimony. Id. at 6-9.
To the extent Neovasc attempts to rehash any of these arguments in its motion for a new
trial, its efforts are unavailing. CardiAQ presented sufficient evidence at trial to support the 18month head start assumption. It took CardiAQ about 20 months to develop the trade secrets at
issue in this case, [Tr. Day 4, 127:16-19, 134:7-25], and Mr. Wagner was justified in assuming it
would take Neovasc approximately the same amount of time. Over the course of the trial, the
22
jury heard considerable testimony about the value of CardiAQs trade secrets, from which they
could reasonably conclude that possessing them gave Neovasc an 18-month head start. The 18month head start was supported by the evidencenamely, CardiAQs own development time, as
well as Dr. Ratz testimonyand was not based on speculation or guesswork. Likewise, as the
Court has already held, Mr. Wagner could consider data from 2015 to calculate a reasonable
royalty based upon a hypothetical negotiation in 2010. At trial, Mr. Wagner testified as to all of
the Georgia Pacific factors, several of which involve ex-post evidence, including: the current
popularity of the infringing product, the established profitability of the product, and the
extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention. Georgia-Pac. Corp. v. U.S.
Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), modified sub nom. Georgia-Pac.
Corp. v. U.S. Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc., 446 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1971); see also Lucent, 580
F.3d at 1333 ([T]he hypothetical negotiation analysis permits and often requires a court to look
to events and facts that occurred thereafter and that could not have been known to or predicted
by the hypothesized negotiators.) (quoting Fromson, 853 F.2d at 1575).
The one new argument raised by Neovasc in its motion for a new trial on damages, which
was not raised in its pre-trial motion to exclude Mr. Wagners testimony, is that the jurys split
verdict on damagesfinding that Neovasc misappropriated trade secrets 4-6, but not 1-3
renders Mr. Wagners testimony useless. According to Neovasc, there was not evidence from
which the jury could determine the value of trade secrets 4 and 6, since Mr. Wagner did not
testify as to the reasonable royalty for each individual trade secret. 3 CardiAQ responds that it
presented evidence that trade secrets 4 or 6 would command a $90 million royalty. They point to
Mr. Wagners testimony, in which he stated that the combination of Trade Secrets 1 and 2, as
Mr. Wagner did not assign any value to trade secret 5, the Mandrel. [Tr. Day 8 at 68:11-17].
23
well as the individual Trade Secrets 3, 4, and 6 were each worth $90 million. [Tr. Day 8, 16:2225]. 4 They also point to Mr. Ratzs testimony explaining that trade secrets 1 and 2 together, and
trade secrets 3, 4, and 6 individually, all had the same value. [Tr. Day 4, 88:5-22].
Based on the evidence before it, including Mr. Wagner and Mr. Ratz testimony, the jury
rationally appraised the value of the misappropriated trade secrets, and Neovasc has not
demonstrated that it is entitled to a new trial on damages. Mr. Wagner valued the trade secrets
based on the challenges they solved and the head start they gave to Neovasc. It was not
erroneous for Mr. Wagner to assume, or the jury to conclude, that the combination of trade
secrets 1 and 2, as well as the individual trade secrets 3, 4, and 6 solved the same challenges and
gave Neovasc the same head-start. Whether in the form of physical prototypes (trade secrets 13), design features (trade secret 4), or historical developments (trade secret 6), each disclosed the
key inventive concepts behind CardiAQs TMVI device, including its anchoring system, and
how CardiAQ had gone about solving the challenges facing TMVI developers at the time.
b. Motion for a New Trial on Trade Secrets 4, 5, and 6
As the Court instructed the jury, for each trade secret claim, CardiAQ needed to prove by
a preponderance of the evidence the following three elements: (1) that CardiAQs information
was a trade secret; (2) that CardiAQ took reasonable steps to preserve the secrecy of its
information; and (3) that Neovasc used the trade secret through improper means. [Day 13 Tr. at
165:2-9]. In its motion for a new trial on trade secrets 4-6, Neovasc does not take issue with the
Courts jury instructions. Rather, Neovasc contends that the [t]he jurys finding of
misappropriation with respect to TS Claims 4, 5, and 6 is unsupported by the evidence and
In his expert report, which was provided to Neovasc before trial, Mr. Wagner also stated that he
was assigning equal value to trade secrets 1 and 2 together; trade secret 3 alone; trade secret 4
alone; and trade secret 6 alone. [ECF No. 363-2 at 13].
24
contrary to governing law. [ECF No. 521 at 1]. Neovascs principal argument is that CardiAQ
did not prove that trade secrets 4, 5, and 6 were in fact trade secrets, as defined under
Massachusetts law and in the Courts instructions. 5
First, Neovasc argues that it is entitled to a new trial on trade secret number 4 since there
was insufficient evidence to show that trade secret 4 was either a secret or a unified process, as is
required of all trade secrets under Massachusetts law. Trade secret 4 described CardiAQs TMVI
device generally. Trade secret 4 consists of:
A transcatheter replacement mitral valve prosthesis design that includes an
expandable metal frame for supporting a tricuspid, one-way valve, the
expandable metal frame sized for placement in a human native mitral valve
space, where the prosthesis is configured for mitral valve implantation
without relying exclusively on radial force but rather by engaging the native
mitral valve annulus on the atrial side of the native mitral valve and by
anchoring the prosthesis on the ventricular side of the native mitral valve
annulus, where the prosthesis includes one or more of the following
5
In its jury instructions, the Court defined a trade secret as follows:

A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or combination
of information which is used in business and which gives an opportunity to
obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it. It may be
a formula for a chemical compound, a process of manufacturing, treating or
preserving materials, a pattern for machine or other device, or a list of
customers. A trade secret is a process or device for continuous use in the
operation of the business. It differs from other secret information in a
business in that it is not simply information as to a single or ephemeral event
in the conduct of the business, as, for example, the amount or other terms
of a secret bid for a contract or the salary of certain employees or the date
fixed for the announcement of a new policy or for bringing out a new model
or the like. The subject matter of a trade secret must be secret. Matters of
public knowledge or of general knowledge in the industry cannot be
appropriated by one as a secret.
A trade secret can exist in a combination of characteristics and components,
even if some or all of the characteristics and components are in the public
domain, as long as the unified process, design, and operation of the
combination constitutes a unique combination that is a trade secret.
[Tr. Day 13 at 165-66].

25
additional features: a. Ventricular Anchors that Extend Between the

Chordae, Capture the Native Leaflets, and Engage the Ventricular Side of
the Native Mitral Annulus . . . b. Variable Strut Dimensions . . . c. Lower
Atrial Profile . . . d. Larger Ventricular Cross-Sectional Dimension . . .e. VShaped Atraumatic Anchors . . . f. Mushroom-Shaped Locking Tabs
[Tr. Ex. 1157 at 14-17]. Neovascs motion for a new trial focuses on the six features listed at the
end of trade secret 4. Neovasc claims that CardiAQ did not prove that these features were secret
or that they constituted a unified process. According to Neovasc, CardiAQ did not merely fail to
establish secrecy of the individual features: it ultimately agreed that they were not secret, and
further that CardiAQ offered no evidence that combining some or all of the features resulted in
a unified process. [ECF No. 521 at 5].
Neovascs motion for a new trial takes the six features listed at the end of trade secret
number 4 out of context. CardiAQ did not claim that these features were themselves trade
secrets. Instead, trade secret 4 consists of CardiAQs TMVI design, which contains one or more
of the six listed features. As the Court instructed the jury without objection, A trade secret can
exist in a combination of characteristics and components, even if some or all of the
characteristics and components are in the public domain, as long as the unified process, design,
and operation of the combination constitutes a unique combination that is a trade secret. [Tr.
Day 13 at 166:4-9]. Though sugar is not a trade secret, a secret recipe containing sugar can be.
Likewise, though mushroom-shaped locking tabs (one of the six listed features) may have been
well-known in the industry and therefore not a trade secret, the jury could reasonably find that a
TMVI device containing mushroom-shaped locking tabs was a trade secret.
Neovasc presented evidence that the individual elements of trade secret 4 were publically
known, but not in the context of a fully conceptualized TMVI device. For example, Neovascs
expert Mr. Leinsing cited to a patent on non-heart valve stents to show that variable strut
26
dimension was publicly known [Tr. Day 11, 109:2-12; Ex. 2075], to a patent for a transcatheter
aortic valve to show that V-shaped, atraumatic anchors were publicly known [Tr. Day 11,
110:11-24; Ex. 2086], and to a patent on a stomach implant and aortic device to show that
mushroom-shaped locking tabs were publicly disclosed. [Tr. Day 11, 110:25-111:18; Exs. 2079
and 2091]. Neovasc did not show, however, that these elements were included or combined in a
previously disclosed transcatheter mitral valve device. CardiAQ revealed to Neovasc TMVI
prototypes that embodied all of the features identified in CardiAQs Trade Secret 4, [Tr. Day 4,
86:14-16; Tr. Day 7, 12:17-17:21], and the jury could reasonably conclude that a TMVI device
with these features was both a secret and a unified process. 6
Neovasc is also not entitled to a new trial on trade secret number 5. Trade secret number
5 was the CardiAQ Mandrel, a tool created by CardiAQ to help construct its TMVI device.
During their business relationship, and pursuant to the NDA, CardiAQ gave the Mandrel to
Neovasc, so that Neovasc could build CardiAQs prototypes. Krista Neale, a Neovasc project
engineer, admitted to using the Mandrel on an unrelated project after CardiAQ had cut ties with
Neovasc. [Neale Depo. 115:04-117:18].
In support of its motion for a new trial on trade secret 4, Neovasc cites several trade secret
cases that were decided on summary judgment, after the defendant challenged the adequacy of
plaintiffs trade secret disclosures. In Sutra, Inc. v. Iceland Express, EHF for example, Judge
Woodlock determined that plaintiffs trade secret disclosure, made during discovery, was far
too open textured to meet the test for an identifiable trade secret, where the plaintiff identified
its alleged trade secret as the operation, appearance, features and functionality of its computer
software. No. CIV.A. 04-11360-DPW, 2008 WL 2705580, at *4 (D. Mass. July 10, 2008).
Likewise, in Sit-Up Ltd. v. IAC/InterActiveCorp. the court granted summary judgment where the
plaintiff failed to describe the secret with sufficient specificity that its protectability [could] be
assessed and to show that its compilation [was] unique. No. 05 CIV. 9292 (DLC), 2008 WL
463884, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2008). On summary judgment, Neovasc could have, but chose
not to, challenge the adequacy of CardiAQs trade secret disclosures. CardiAQ identified its
trade secrets in August 2015, and Neovasc waited until after trial to argue that CardiAQs
disclosures were somehow inadequate. In any event, CardiAQ identified trade secret 4 with
sufficient detail, describing its TMVI design with particularity.
27
Neovasc claims that it is entitled to a new trial on trade secret number 5 because CardiAQ
ascribed no value to the Mandrel and because CardiAQ disclosed the Mandrel in an April 2010
patent application. The patent application, however, did not provide as much information as
Neovasc received by holding the physical Mandrel and by viewing CAD files for the Mandrel
that were not included in any patent applications. [Tr. Day 9 at 109:6-110:23; Tr. Ex. 1163].
Further, while it is true that the Mandrel was not included in Mr. Wagners reasonable royalty
calculation, the jury could still find that it was a valuable trade secret, given that it was covered
by the NDA, not publically available, and necessary to construct CardiAQs device.
Lastly, Neovasc is not entitled to a new trial on trade secret number 6. Trade secret
number 6 was the development history of CardiAQs TMVI device. In its trade secret disclosure,
CardiAQ identified trade secret number 6 as:
The development history of CardiAQs transcatheter replacement mitral
valve prosthesis design, including the following: CardiAQ created an aortic
valve prosthesis prototype designated as Rev. 4, which CardiAQ evaluated
and tested. CardiAQ created a mitral valve prosthesis design designated as
Rev. A. That Rev. A design evolved into a prototype designated as Rev. B,
which CardiAQ evaluated and tested. That Rev. B design evolved into a
prototype designated as Rev. C, which CardiAQ evaluated and tested. That
Rev. C design evolved into a prototype designated as Rev. D, which
CardiAQ evaluated and tested. That Rev. D design evolved into prototypes
designated as the Rev. E series (including Rev. E2 through Rev. E4), which
CardiAQ evaluated and tested.
[Tr. Ex. 1157 at 18]. According to Neovasc, this development history is not protectable as a trade
secret because it does not satisfy the continuous use or unified process requirements under
Massachusetts law. In addition, Neovasc claims that CardiAQ did not show that Neovasc
improperly used or disclosed CardiAQs development history.
Before and during its relationship with Neovasc, CardiAQ modified the design of its
TMVI device. At the outset of the parties relationship, both Mr. Ratz and Dr. Quadri told
28
Neovasc about CardiAQs earliest TMVI work. [Tr. Day 3, 21:2-8; Tr. Ex. 1158 (showing Rev.
A at p. 12, and Rev. B at p. 11)]. During their relationship, CardiAQ asked Neovasc to build
frames with different designs, as CardiAQ modified the anchoring mechanism and other features
of its device.
The jury, which was instructed on the Massachusetts continuous use requirement [Day 13
Tr. at 165:17-19], had a sufficient basis to conclude that CardiAQ continues to use trade secret 6
in the operation of its business. As it develops its TMVI device and works towards FDA
approval, CardiAQ continues to use its past discoveries about what works and what does not. Its
development history has influenced the current design of its TMVI device, and will likely
influence any future modifications to it. [See, e.g., Tr. Day 4 at 110:10-111:4] (Even as we
encounter new challenges, if we look back and say, How are we going to approach that, here is
what weve done before, we know what not to do as we encounter something else.). Likewise,
the jury, which was also instructed on Massachusetts unified process requirement [Day 13 Tr. at
166:4-9], could reasonably conclude that CardiAQs development history constitutes a unified
process. The development history described in trade secret 6 was for a single product. CardiAQs
Revisions A through E were each steps in a defined progression of ideas. Each step informed the
next, and there was a single purpose for the processcreating a functional TMVI device.
Finally, CardiAQ presented sufficient evidence that Mr. Lane used both the dead ends and
breakthroughs in CardiAQs development history to shape the design of the Tiara and to
accelerate its development. As Neovasc itself admitted in a 2010 shareholder presentation, its
[i]ntimate understanding of what has and has not worked so far in the development of
(percutaneous) valves gave it a competitive advantage over other TMVI developers. [Tr. Ex.
29
608 at 4; see also Ex. 384 at 15] (The Tiara program has benefited enormously from this pool of
experience and talent that has evolved as we have worked with our partners.). 7
IV.
Inventorship
The one issue that remains outstanding is CardiAQs inventorship claim. On November
12, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. Patent No. 8,579,964 (the
964 Patent) to Neovasc. The 964 Patent, directed to a method of anchoring a valve into the
heart, lists Randy Lane and Colin Nyuli, both Neovasc employees, as the inventors. The 964
Patent contains one independent claim (Claim 1) and 27 dependent claims (Claims 2-28).
CardiAQ contends that Dr. Quadri and Mr. Ratz invented the subject matter of independent
Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2 through 28 of the 964 Patent, either by themselves or in
collaboration with Mr. Lane and Mr. Nyuli, and seeks an order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 256,
requiring Neovasc and the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to take all
steps necessary to correct the named inventor on the 964 Patent.
a. Legal Standard
35 U.S.C. Section 256 creates a cause of action in the district courts to correct the nonjoinder of an inventor on a patent. Under Section 256, a district court may order correction of
the patent on notice and hearing of all parties concerned and the Director shall issue a certificate
To the extent Neovasc seeks a new trial based on based on alleged inconsistencies in the trade
secret verdict, its arguments here are also unavailing. As this Court instructed the jury,
CardiAQs inability to prove misappropriation of one trade secret does not mean that it has
failed to do so with any of its other alleged trade secrets. [Tr. Day 13, 164:16-165:1]. The jurys
determination of no misappropriation could hinge on one of any number of details (disclosure,
use, continuous use, public disclosure, etc.), which are unique between each trade secret. For
instance, the jury could have found that trade secrets 1-3 (the Rev. C, D, and E design
prototypes) were no longer in continuous use, since CardiAQ has replaced them with updated
prototypes. Each trade secret claim hinged on distinct facts, and the jurys split verdict reflects an
attentive and deliberative process.
30
accordingly. 35 U.S.C. 256. Conception is the touchstone to determining inventorship. Fina

Oil & Chem. Co. v. Ewen, 123 F.3d 1466, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, each joint
inventor must generally contribute to the conception of the invention. Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S.
Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A co-inventor does not need to make a
contribution to every claim of a patent. Id. Nor does a co-inventor need to contribute to the
conception of all the limitations in a single claim. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d
1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Rather, a joint inventors contribution must be not insignificant in
quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention. Bard
Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 776 F.3d 837, 845 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(quoting Fina Oil & Chem. Co., 123 F.3d at 1473), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 189 (2015), abrogated
on other grounds by Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016). Each joint
inventor needs to perform only a part of the task which produces the invention. Ethicon, Inc.,
135 F.3d at 1460; see also Vanderbilt Univ. v. ICOS Corp., 601 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
([T]he qualitative contribution of each collaborator is keyeach inventor must contribute to the
joint arrival at a definite and permanent idea of the invention as it will be used in practice.)
(quoting Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). To
be a joint inventor, [o]ne need not alone conceive of the entire invention, for this would obviate
the concept of joint inventorship. Fina Oil & Chem. Co., 123 F.3d at 1473.
Joint inventorship requires collaboration. [C]o-inventors must collaborate and work
together to collectively have a definite and permanent idea of the complete invention.
Vanderbilt Univ., 601 F.3d at 1308. The inventors must have some open line of communication
during or in temporal proximity to their inventive efforts. Eli Lilly & Co., 376 F.3d at 1359.
Patents issued by the USPTO are presumed to name the correct inventors and, as a result, the
31
burden of showing misjoinder or nonjoinder of inventors is a heavy one and must be proved by
clear and convincing evidence. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., 776 F.3d at 845 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Inventorship is a question of law. General Elec. Co. v. Wilkins, 750
F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nonetheless, the determination of whether a person is a joint
inventor is fact specific, and no bright-line standard will suffice in every case. Fina Oil and
Chem. Co., 123 F.3d at 1473.
Alleged co-inventors must prove their contribution to the conception of the invention
with more than their own testimony. Gemstar-TV Guide Intl., Inc. v. Intl Trade Commn, 383
F.3d 1352, 1382 (Fed Cir. 2004). The putative inventor must first provide credible testimony,
after which the Court applies a rule-of-reason analysis to determine whether the co-inventors
testimony has been sufficiently corroborated. General Elec. Co., 750 F.3d at 1330. Corroborating
evidence can include contemporaneous records, oral testimony from someone other than the
inventor, or other circumstantial evidence. Univ. of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur
Foerderung Der Wissenschaften e.V., No. 11-10484-PBS, 2015 WL 5698398, at *5 (D. Mass.
Sept. 28, 2015), appeal dismissed (Dec. 18, 2015).
b. The 964 Patent
Mr. Lane first sketched an idea for what would become the Tiara on October 20, 2009,
and he first communicated to patent counsel his ideas for a transcatheter mitral valve
replacement device in December 2009. [Tr. Day 9, 107:19-108:8]. On May 5, 2010, Mr. Lane
and Neovasc filed provisional patent application No. 61/331,799, claiming the Tiara design [Tr.
Day 9, 107:19-108:8; Tr. Ex. 565]. On April 28, 2011 Mr. Lane and Neovasc filed nonprovisional application No. 13/096,572, which claimed priority to the May 5, 2010 application,
32
as well as to two intermittent provisional applications (Nos. 61/ 393,860 and 61/414,879). [Tr.
Ex. 565]. On November 12, 2013, application No. 13/096,572 issued as the 964 Patent. Id.
Claim 1 of the 964 Patent claims a method of anchoring a prosthetic valve in a patients
heart, said method comprising:
providing the prosthetic valve, wherein the prosthetic valve comprises an
anchor having an atrial skirt, an annular region, a ventricular skirt, and a
plurality of valve leaflets, wherein the ventricular skirt comprises a first
trigonal anchoring tab disposed on an anterior portion of the ventricular
skirt, wherein the anchor has a collapsed configuration for delivery to the
heart and an expanded configuration for anchoring with the heart;
positioning the prosthetic valve in the patients heart;
expanding the atrial skirt radially outward so as to lie over a superior
surface of the patients native mitral valve, and anchoring the atrial skirt
against a portion of the atrium;
radially expanding the annular region of the anchor to conform with and to
engage the native mitral valve annulus;
anchoring the first trigonal anchoring tab against a first fibrous trigone on
a first side of an anterior leaflet of the native mitral valve, such that the
anterior leaflet and adjacent chordae tendineae are captured between the
trigonal anchoring tab and an anterior surface of the anchor; and
radially expanding the ventricular skirt thereby displacing the native mitral
valve leaflets radially outward.
[ECF No. 293-11 at 60-61].
c. Discussion
The parties agree that before getting to the inventorship question, the Court must engage
in claim construction. The parties chief dispute, which was a central theme at trial, is the
meaning of trigonal anchoring tab mentioned in Claim 1. Claim 1 describes a prosthetic valve,
wherein the ventricular skirt comprises a first trigonal anchoring tab and involves anchoring
the first trigonal anchoring tab against a first fibrous trigone on a first side of an anterior leaflet
33
of the native mitral valve. According to CardiAQ, the term trigonal anchoring tab means a tab
capable of anchoring on a fibrous trigone when deployed. [ECF No. 512 at 2]. According to
Neovasc, it means a tab designed for anchoring on a fibrous trigone when deployed. [ECF No.
535 at 9].
The following is a picture of the mitral valve from the 964 Patent:
The figure shows that the mitral valve has two fibrous trigones, a left fibrous trigone and a right
fibrous trigone. AN points to the mitral valve annulus. At trial and in their inventorship briefs,
the parties have disputed whether the fibrous trigones are part of the native mitral valve annulus
or not. According to Neovasc, the fibrous trigones are adjacent to, but separate from, the native
mitral valve annulus. This is consistent with the 964 Patent, which stated that the fibrous
trigones consist of two regions adjacent an anterior portion of the annulus. [Tr. Ex 115 at 53].
CardiAQ counters that that the fibrous trigones are a continuous part of the annulus, and not
separate from it. At trial, CardiAQs expert, Dr. Bavaria, testified that fibrous trigones are part of
the native mitral annulus. [Tr. Day 6 at 34:23-35:22].
The Court does not need to resolve this anatomical dispute in order to define Claim 1.
Regardless of whether the fibrous trigones are part of the annulus or not, the trigonal anchoring
tab mentioned in Claim 1 is designed to anchor specifically on the fibrous trigones. In view of
34
the 964 Patent claim language and specification, Anchoring the first trigonal anchoring tab
against a first fibrous trigone on a first side of an anterior leaflet of the native mitral valve
means positioning the trigonal anchoring tab in order to anchor it against a fibrous trigone on
either the left or right side of the native anterior leaflet. CardiAQs proposed construction would
read the word trigonal out of Claim 1. A trigonal anchoring tab that anchors anywhere other
than on a fibrous trigone is not described in the 964 patent, and CardiAQs proposed
construction is unduly broad. In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1285 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (finding patent examiner erred in construing thumb switch broadly as merely
requir[ing] that a switch . . . be capable of being enabled/activated by a thumb but . . . not
preclud[ing] another digit, i.e. index finger).
Even accepting this proposed claim construction, however, as well as all of the others
proposed by Neovasc, CardiAQ has still demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that it
contributed to the conception of the 964 Patent and that Mr. Ratz and Dr. Quadri should be
added as co-inventors.
While it is true that CardiAQ did not share with Neovasc any TMVI prototypes
containing anchors specifically designed to anchor on the fibrous trigones, the prototypes that
CardiAQ did discuss and share with Neovasc had equally spaced anchors, intended to anchor on
the annulus generally. Given the number of anchors and size of the fibrous trigones, it was likely
that at least one of CardiAQs anchoring tabs would anchor against a fibrous trigone, but this
was more a coincidence than on purpose.
A joint inventor, however, does not need to contribute to every single element of every
single claim in the patentssome contribution is sufficient. Rothschild v. Cree, Inc., 711 F.
Supp. 2d 173, 204 (D. Mass. 2010) (citing 35 U.S.C. 116); see also Ethicon, Inc., 135 F.3d at
35
1460 (each joint inventor needs to perform only a part of the task which produces the
invention). All inventors, even those who contribute to only one claim or one aspect of one
claim of a patent, must be listed on [a] patent. Vapor Point LLC v. Moorhead, 832 F.3d 1343,
134849 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To be a joint inventor, an individual must make a contribution to the
claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against
the dimension of the full invention. Fina Oil and Chem. Co., 123 F.3d at 1473.
Accordingly, even if Neovasc independently conceived of trigonal anchoring tabs
designed to anchor on the fibrous trigone, CardiAQ still made a significant contribution to the
conception of the 964 Patent. CardiAQ retained Neovasc to facilitate its TMVI development.
During their ten-month business relationship, CardiAQ collaborated with Neovasc and shared
with Neovasc the designs, prototypes, and development history of its device. Mr. Lane admits
that he had never designed a TMVI device prior to working on the CardiAQ device, and his
earliest sketches of a TMVI device do not appear until October 2009, months after he started
working with Mr. Ratz and Dr. Quadri. [Tr. Day 9 at 60:25-61:3; Ex. 346 at 148]. The
progression of TMVI ideas sketched in Mr. Lanes notebook reflects a trend towards the designs
of CardiAQ: Mr. Lane began in October 2009 with a grommet-style TMVI device with no
distinct anchors, and he progressed to extended vertical anchors in March 2010, after Mr. Lane
first received the Rev E design earlier, in February 2010. [Compare Ex. 346 at 148 with Ex. 346
at 160, 163; Tr. Day 9, 83:16-86:19]. Considering this sequence of events, as well as the
similarities between the prototypes CardiAQ shared with Neovasc and the features of Claim 1,
CardiAQ has shown by clear and convincing evidence that it unwittingly contributed to Mr.
Lanes inventive process. Even if Mr. Lane contributed some new ideas to the 964 Patent, Dr.
36
Quadri and Mr. Ratz performed a part of the task which produces the invention. See Ethicon,
Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Mr. Ratz and Dr. Quadris contribution to the invention and collaboration with Neovasc
is corroborated not only by their own testimony, but also the testimony of Mr. Lane, the email
communications between the parties [Tr. Exs. 1158-1219], and the physical prototypes of
CardiAQs devices still in Neovascs possession. [Tr. Exs. 331-333]; see Gemstar-TV Guide
Intl., Inc. v, Intl Trade Comms, 383 F.3d 1352, 1382 (Fed Cir. 2004) (alleged co-inventors
must prove their contribution to the conception of the invention with more than their own
testimony); Eli Lilly & Co., 376 F.3d at 1359 (noting that to establish collaboration, joint
inventors must have some open line of communication during or in temporal proximity to their
inventive efforts). The 964 Patent claims numerous features that were included in the
prototypes and designs Mr. Ratz and Dr. Quadri shared with Neovasc, including a device that is
delivered to a patients heart via a catheter, either through the apex of the heart or through the
femoral vein; that once positioned in the patients native mitral valve, is allowed to expand and
engages the native anatomy on both the atrial and ventricular sides of the annulus and includes
an anterior side and a posterior side; and whose anchors extend between the native chordae
tendinae, behind the free edge of the native mitral valve leaflets, and engage onto the native
mitral annulus.
Neovasc relies on the prosecution history of the 964 Patent to argue that anchoring on
the fibrous trigones was the key inventive aspect of the patent, and that because CardiAQ did not
contribute to this novel part of the patent, it should not be named as a co-inventor. In a first
Office Action dated June 4, 2013, the examiner found independent Claim 1 of the 964 Patent
anticipated by a prior art reference, US Patent Publication No. 2006/0259136 to Nguyen et al
37
(Nguyen), that disclosed individual features similar to the elements of Claim 1. [Tr. Ex. 2779
at 1037-1045]. In response, Neovasc informed the Patent Office, and the Patent Office agreed,
that the prior art reference did not teach securing an anchoring tab against a first fibrous
trigon[e]. [Ex. 2779 at 1085]. This, however, was not the only argument made by Neovasc and
accepted by the Patent Office. In addition, Neovasc noted that the prior art disclosed the
elements of Claim 1 in the context of a transcatheter aortic valve replacement device, not a
mitral valve device. As Neovasc wrote to the Patent Office in response to the June 4, 2013 Office
Action, Nguyen discloses prosthetic valve for treating aortic stenosis or aortic regurgitation
(para 001). Thus it is clear that Nguyens prosthetic valve is implanted in the patients aortic
valve not the mitral valve as currently claimed. Nowhere in Nguyen is there teaching or
suggestion that Nguyens prosthetic valve is implanted in the mitral valve. In fact terms such as
mitral valve, chordae tendinae, atrium, and trigone do not even appear in Nguyens
specification. Id. at 1080-81. The Patent Office agreed, withdrawing its rejection of Claim 1 in
part because Nguyen falls to teach valve that engages native mitral valve annulus . . . . Id. at
1085. Thus, the prior art not only lacked trigonal anchoring, but it also lacked a transcathetic
mitral valveexactly what CardiAQ shared with Neovascthat engaged the native mitral valve
annulus.
Neovasc also claims that a single prior art reference called Chau, a patent for a prosthetic
mitral valve, disclosed all of the elements of the 964 patent contributed by CardiAQ. [ECF No.
535 at 5-6]. The parties agree, however, that the Chau reference was not public at the time Dr.
Quadri and Mr. Ratz worked with Mr. Lane. Chau therefore does not detract from CardiAQs
contribution to the 964 Patent. At the time Dr. Quadri and Mr. Ratz collaborated with Mr.
Lanesharing designs and prototypes of CardiAQs TMVI devicethey were not merely
38
explain[ing] . . . well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art. Pannu v. Iolab Corp.,
155 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Rather, in far more detail than they had ever made public,
Dr. Quadri and Mr. Ratz shared with Neovasc the inventive process behind their TMVI project.
In the context of 2009, when no one had ever built a successful transcatheter mitral valve device,
Dr. Quadri and Mr. Ratz gave Neovasc a front-row view of CardiAQs TMVI development,
thereby contributing to the conception of the 964 Patent.
V.
Pro Hac Vice Motions

On October 19, 2016, Neovasc filed motions and a supporting memorandum [ECF Nos.
571-574] seeking the Pro Hac Vice admission of three additional attorneys. CardiAQ opposes
the admission of these attorneys on grounds wholly unrelated to their fitness or qualifications.
Because this Memorandum and Order resolves all of the other pending motions in the case,
thereby effectively ending this litigation in the District Court, there is no reason for any attorney
to practice in this court in this particular case, as required by Local Rule 83.5.3. The pending
motions for Pro Hoc Vice admission will therefore be denied as moot.
VI.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein:
1. CardiAQs motion for enhanced damages [ECF No. 513] is GRANTED IN PART and
Neovasc is ordered to pay $21,000,000 in enhanced damages;
2. CardiAQs motion for injunctive relief [ECF No. 516] is GRANTED IN PART and the
Court orders that:
a. Within 7 days of this Order, Neovasc must destroy all information that CardiAQ
sent to Neovasc between June 2009 and April 2010, including emails and
attachments thereto, CAD files, engineering drawings, animal test results, design
39
history information, as well as any work product that Neovasc generated that
incorporates information contained in the foregoing, including the contents of any
physical or electronic file that Neovasc may keep regarding CardiAQ, including
the electronic CardiAQ folder referenced during trial (see Tr. Day 9 (Marko),
105:1-20; Ex. 1486 at 106:14-19). Neovasc must certify in writing that it has
complied with this paragraph of the Order.
b. Within 7 days of this Order, Neovasc must return to CardiAQ any CardiAQ
prototypes, or portions thereof, that CardiAQ provided to Neovasc and that
Neovasc still has in its possession, custody, or control, including but not limited to
prototypes fabricated by Neovasc to test any CardiAQ prototype design. 8
3. Neovascs motion for a new trial on damages [ECF No. 522] is DENIED;
4. Neovascs motion for a new trial on trade secrets 4-6 [ECF No. 521] is DENIED;
5. CardiAQ has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Quadri and Mr. Ratz
contributed to the conception of U.S. Patent No. 8,579,964 and the Court therefore orders
that Dr. Quadri and Mr. Ratz be added as inventors of U.S. Patent No. 8,579,964; and
6. Neovascs motions for the Pro Hac Vice admission of new attorneys [ECF Nos. 571-573]
are DENIED as MOOT.
So Ordered.
October 31, 2016
/s/ Allison D. Burroughs

ALLISON D. BURROUGHS
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Paragraphs a and b shall not apply to materials produced in, or generated by, this lawsuit and
maintained by counsel of record or any other third party permitted by the Protective Order
entered in this case [ECF No. 92] and used in accordance with that Order.
40

CardiAQ Vs Neovasc Memorandum and Order

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CardiAQ Vs Neovasc Memorandum and Order

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No. 14-cv-12405-ADB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 3 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 4 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 5 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 6 of 40

6. CardiAQs Transcatheter Mitral Valve Implantation Development History

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 7 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 8 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 9 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 10 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 11 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 12 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 13 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 14 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 15 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 16 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 17 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 18 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 19 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 20 of 40

Neovascs Pending Motions

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 21 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 22 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 23 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 24 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 25 of 40

In its jury instructions, the Court defined a trade secret as follows:

[Tr. Day 13 at 165-66].

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 26 of 40

additional features: a. Ventricular Anchors that Extend Between the

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 27 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 28 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 29 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 30 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 31 of 40

accordingly. 35 U.S.C. 256. Conception is the touchstone to determining inventorship. Fina

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 32 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 33 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 34 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 35 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 36 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 37 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 38 of 40

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 39 of 40

Pro Hac Vice Motions

Case 1:14-cv-12405-ADB Document 583 Filed 10/31/16 Page 40 of 40

/s/ Allison D. Burroughs

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi